1. ) Thevesh A/l Sashikumar 2. ) Kalaiyarasu A/l Kumara Guru Velan

1. ) Thevesh A/l Sashikumar 2. ) Kalaiyarasu A/l Kumara Guru Velan

The High Court held that the magistrate did not commit legal error in respect of respondent 1: the magistrate properly considered social reports, juvenile status and rehabilitative aims under the Children Act and therefore the non‑custodial bond was appropriate and upheld. As to respondent 2 (a youthful offender), the court allowed the prosecution's appeal in part to add a reporting condition to the existing three‑year bond to better balance public interest and rehabilitation; otherwise the magistrate's exercise of sentencing discretion was maintained.

Citation
JA-41S-2-01-2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Respondent 1 (juvenile): Thevesh a/l Sashikumar; Respondent 2 (young Offender): Kalaiyarasu a/l Kumara Guru Velan
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
19 July 2020
Case Number
JA-41S-2-01-2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal Against Magistrate's Sentence
Outcome
Partly allowed: appeal dismissed as to Respondent 1; appeal allowed in part as to Respondent 2 to add a reporting condition
Legal Topics
Section 324 Penal Code (voluntarily Causing Hurt), Children Act 2001 (juvenile Sentencing), Section 294 Criminal Procedure Code (probation), Public Interest in Sentencing, Appellate Review of Sentence
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Juvenile Justice Sentencing Law Criminal Procedure Section 324 Penal Code (voluntarily Causing Hurt) Children Act 2001 (juvenile Sentencing) Section 294 Criminal Procedure Code (probation) Public Interest in Sentencing +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Appellant/prosecution

Thevesh a/l Sashikumar

Respondent 1 (juvenile)

Kalaiyarasu a/l Kumara Guru Velan

Respondent 2 (young Offender)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal Against Magistrate's Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate's non‑custodial sentences were manifestly inadequate for offences under s.324 Penal Code
  2. 2 Whether respondent 1 qualified as a child under the Children Act 2001 and whether rehabilitative principles justified the sentence
  3. 3 Whether respondent 2 as a youthful offender could be dealt with under s.294 CrPC and whether public interest was sufficiently considered

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that the magistrate did not commit legal error in respect of respondent 1: the magistrate properly considered social reports, juvenile status and rehabilitative aims under the Children Act and therefore the non‑custodial bond was appropriate and upheld. As to respondent 2 (a youthful offender), the court allowed the prosecution's appeal in part to add a reporting condition to the existing three‑year bond to better balance public interest and rehabilitation; otherwise the magistrate's exercise of sentencing discretion was maintained.

Court Disposition

Partly allowed: appeal dismissed as to Respondent 1; appeal allowed in part as to Respondent 2 to add a reporting condition

Orders

  • Respondent 1: sentence of bon (bond) of good behaviour for three years with RM1000 surety upheld; parents/guardian to accompany respondent 1 to report monthly to the Department of Social Welfare and respondent 1 to attend the Interactive Workshop organised by the Department of Social Welfare
  • Respondent 2: sentence of bon (bond) of good behaviour for three years with RM1000 surety upheld; added condition that respondent 2 shall report monthly to the nearest police station until expiry of the bond